University of Hawaii employees, including faculty, would be prohibited from having romantic, dating, or sexual relationships with other employees, or with students, “when one member has an evaluative and/or supervisory responsibility for the other.”
That’s the bottom line of a Proposed New Executive Policy on Consensual Relationships circulated for comment this week by UH President David Lassner.
The proposed policy comes just as the findings of a sexual harassment investigation by the University of California at Berkeley reverberate through American universities (see yesterday’s post, “Incident at University of Hawaii cited in harassment findings against high profile Berkeley astronomer“).
The Berkeley investigation concluded that available evidence supports allegations of sexual misconduct against a prominent faculty member involving behavior that was engaged in over a period of years.
The proposed UH policy is the result of work by a committee appointed by Lassner “to review the practices and policies existing at other institutions on the subject of consensual relationships” and to make recommendations “to provide a best-practice approach in recognizing and managing consensual relationships while also balancing the rights of individuals and supporting the values, mission, and goals of our University.”
The proposed policy was based on those previously adopted by a number of other universities on the U.S. mainland.
The proposed UH policy would bar consensual relationships “when one individual in a relationship has direct supervision, direction, instruction, oversight, evaluation, advisement, or substantial influence over the employment or educational status of another.”
These situations pose particular danger “because of the potential for conflict of interest, appearance of such conflicts, and/or abuse of power,” the proposed policy explains. Such conflicts threaten the goal of assuring that “all education and employment decisions shall be made free from bias or favoritism.”
Such relationships that exist at the time the new policy goes into effect would have to be disclosed to the employee’s supervisor, and a plan established “to manage and/or resolve the conflict of interest.”
Penalties for violating the policy would include possible “suspension or termination from employment” for administrative employees who are not represented by a union, while disciplinary actions against union employees would proceed according to existing union contracts.
According to the proposed policy, the university “will not tolerate retaliation against persons who report violations of this policy.”
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As written it seems not to be limited to “On campus”. Also this appears to apply to married couples working together, as they may have “substantial influence over the employment or educational status” of one another.
Maybe something simpler and more biblical: “Thou shalt not take advantage of those entrusted to your care”
Hi Ulu,
According to the policy provided by Ian:
The term “consensual relationship” is
defined as a relationship in which
two individuals are engaged by mutual
consent in a romantic, dating, or
sexual relationship.
Do you seriously think this policy “appears to apply to married couples working together”? Please explain. I see zero need for clarification on this matter. If this needs clarification, then what doesn’t need clarification?
There is little similarity between many of the relationships this policy is meant to cover and the predatory activity of Goeff Macy, much of which would not even have been covered by this policy as he reputedly was fond of groping students from other universities (so not under his supervision),
Ian, if a journalist was reporting on government activity, and he was married to someone involved in that activity, would you expect him to reveal that connection as a disclaimer in the story?
Dear t.
I am not sure I understand your point. Would you agree that a marriage is in the ideal a ““consensual relationship” “in which two individuals are engaged by mutual consent in a romantic, dating, or sexual relationship?” If not how does a marriage differ?
Now let’s assume this relationship/marriage occurs outside the university, is it really anyone’s business? If so, how will the university detect this relationship? “To report a violation of this policy or to file a complaint, contact the campus Human Resources office. Confidentiality is not absolute.” So do we end up with the sex Stasi? Or checking blue dresses or bed sheets?
As an example, say two people who have been working together on a project fall into a romantic relationship. The power balance is rarely equal, one or the other may hold the research grant, the other does not, so there may be “substantial influence over each other’s employment status” (whatever “substantial” actually means).
The university policy reads (with less relevant sections deleted)
“Methods to manage and/or resolve the perceived or actual conflict of interest created by a consensual relationship may include, but are not limited to:
2. Assignment of an additional, impartial individual or individuals to ensure the integrity of the actions of the individuals involved in the relationship
4. Relocation of an employee to another supervisory area”
So either “impartial” individuals wade into a research project’s day to day management or one of the two researchers either gets kicked off the project? Based on the business world, it is usually the woman who gets reassigned.
Cause for all this probably should be a tad stronger than “The mere appearance of bias or impropriety resulting from a consensual romantic, dating, or sexual relationship may seriously disrupt the learning or working environment.”
At that point the couple is likely to turn around and hit the university with legal action. UH just spent $700,000 on Thursday to solve a case resulting from a similar language problem. That debacle would probably turn out to be a bargain compared to the settlement if the plaintiffs are a cute couple (straight or gay) with a couple of toddlers and a half good lawyer.
Yes there is a problem and the intent here is good but solutions should revolve around cases where damage occurs, not just “the mere appearance of bias or impropriety”. Pre emptive rules like prohibition and laws on miscegenation and sodomy just don’t fare well in America. UH needs to take the time to consult with people whose lives may be involved, not just focus on worst case scenarios.
The policy spells out ways to mitigate conflicts like the hypothetical ones you describe. The point is that having someone supervise someone they are in a personal relationship with creates an unfortunate conflict of interest that would not be allowed under the policy. Recusal is an option, depending on the situation.
Ulu, you’re creating details to get lost in. can’t help you there.
Hi Ian,
While I think the policy may prove very useful in avoiding most problems, 1). there will be situations where it won’t fit, and 2) UH has shown little sign of being adroit on the policy side.
How is this already NOT a policy? It’s 2015, for goodness’ sake. This is not a new problem.